The Gospel According to John We Now Come to the Gospel of John

New Testament Bible Content Overview Lesson 7, page 1

The Gospel According to John

We now come to the Gospel of John and its unique contribution in telling the story of Jesus. We have been talking about the story of Jesus and the people of God. The notion that a gospel is a biography is not exactly right. It is not just about a great person, but it is about a whole people. There are elements of historiography and biography in this announcement of the good news of God’s victory and the inbreaking of the reign of God. Remember that when Jesus talks about the reign of God He does not just make a religious statement. He makes a political statement, and as we have also seen He makes an economic statement. All these things are wrapped up together. One of the things we see that dominates all four Gospels is the fact that the Romans kill Jesus in part because He makes a political statement. There is no washing that out. There is no deveining it or stripping it out. It is a claim to the ultimacy of Israel’s God. That claim is in direct opposition to the claim that Caesar makes to be the ultimate power in the Roman world. All of these terms, “Lord, Savior, Father, our great benefactor, the source of great blessing, the One who brings peace” are in inscriptions about Caesar. When we read those terms in the Gospels we have to realize that these scattered Christian communities understood that this is a subversive claim about who is really in charge of the world. This includes those meeting in house churches in Rome who read Mark’s Gospel, those who dealt with the tensions with the synagogue and read Matthew’s Gospel, and those scattered along the paths of Pauline mission who read Luke’s Gospel. When they read Jesus’ announcement of the reign of God and about the Lord Jesus, they heard the political language. They understood that Caesar is not in charge. The reality of Caesar’s leadership was recognized, but it was not given ultimacy or preeminence.

Because different audiences are in view, we have seen the different evangelists talk about different events of Jesus’ life. They record different sayings. Not all of the parables are reiterated. Different ones emphasize different things. When we come to John we find something really different, no parables at all. Of course, one thing that is the same as the other Gospels is that the Gospel of John in dominated by the story of the Passion Week. The cross and the resurrection dominate the second half of his work. It is also dominated by the imagery of Jewish worship and symbols. That means something in terms of who Jesus is as the fulfillment of Israel’s destiny and hope. We need to recognize that John is really different. Papias talks about John. He talks about the elders Andrew, Peter, John, and Matthew, and he talks about Aristeon and the Presbyter John. What the disciples say is a little confusing because it seems that there are two Johns in what Papias records. There is also the fact that in 2 and 3 John “John the elder” is listed. How do we understand which John we are talking about? Like all the other Gospels, the Gospel of John is anonymous. It is not signed. We do not have a signature on it, but we do have a coy description of “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” The disciple Jesus loved is an unusual expression, a description that seems to be referring to John the apostle.

Let us talk about how we put all this together. It is interesting that as we think about John the elder we even think about the way John’s Gospel ends. We see the rebuke of Peter when Jesus says that not everyone will die. He talks about Peter and the way that he will die. John, the disciple Jesus loved, is not going to die that way. We realize that John is the last apostle. From Acts we know that Herod killed James. We know that Peter and Paul, according to the tradition, died in Rome in the mid 60s AD . That leaves us to ask who is around. James is not around because he was killed. The one who is left is John. John probably centers his ministry in Ephesus. We saw the advance of the centers of Christian mission from Jerusalem to Antioch to Ephesus in Acts. An important note to make is that Ephesus is the focus of more literature in the New Testament than any other place. We have the letter from Paul to the Ephesian church. Even if it is a circular letter, Ephesus is the capital of Asia. It had to begin there, and that would be the main focus of the letter that was sent. We have the letters to Timothy, and Timothy was sent to

Ephesus. He ministered at the church of Ephesus. We have John at Ephesus, and then we have the letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation. Ephesus is one of those, and Ephesus is the capital of Asia. We see Ephesus is really an important destination for a lot of New Testament writing. We will talk more about Ephesus later when we get to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. It makes sense in light of the fact that these other major church leader figures have passed from the scene that the one remaining is John. This is John the disciple but also John the elder over this church in Asia and others around it.

Turn to an interesting encounter in John 9. We see here an important clue to the audience that John wrote to in the way that he tells the story of the healing of the man born blind. Let us begin with John 9:13,

They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?” So they were divided. Finally they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?” “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we do not know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.

An important thing in John’s Gospel is this designation of “the Jews.” The parents give a very carefully worded answer to the Jews. What we have in verse 19 seems to indicate that the struggle, evident in Matthew’s Gospel, is over, the separation with the synagogue is now complete. One of the reasons we have this umbrella reference to “the Jews” is because John can look back on the “parting of the ways.” Now, we are in the wake of this great separation.

I want to invite you to turn to the end of the book, because even more so than Luke’s Gospel, which has a purpose statement in Luke 1:1-4, John has a very elaborate purpose statement in John 20:30-31. “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book, but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” In other words, John chose what he talked about with a purpose in mind. He wanted the reader to believe and see that Jesus is the Christ. It is interesting that we have different views on the purpose of John’s Gospel because of some differences in the manuscripts about what mood we have for the verb here. It could be indicative or subjunctive, but Carson makes a very good case here. He says, “John records Jesus’ signs and glory in order that those who read (Jews, God- fearers, proselytes who are connected to the church in Ephesus, those with a Jewish background) might have eternal life by believing that the Messiah, the Son of God promised in Israel’s Scripture, is Jesus, and that they might testify to Him.” That means that John’s Gospel has an evangelistic purpose. The debate is over the tense of the verb. If it is present tense it reads, “in order that you go on believing” or “might continue to believe.” That would be an edification tract. It would be something that builds up believers. But there is also an aorist verb, which reads, “in order that you might believe.” The idea here is to start believing. I think it is intentionally ambiguous. The church in Ephesus is given a really important tool for how to talk to their friends who are no longer in the church but are in the synagogue. How do they talk to them about who Jesus is? There is both an edification purpose and an evangelistic

© Spring 2008, Gregory Perry & Covenant Theological Seminary New Testament Bible Content Overview Lesson 7, page 3 purpose. We have to deal with John 20:30-31 in terms of why John tells this particular story. He says, “In order that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Christ.” When we read this we lose the Jewish context of that. He is the Messiah, the long-awaited One.

John’s Gospel has a very clear structure, and I want to talk about this structural key. I want to begin talking about it in John 2. Turn to John 2 and the wedding at Cana. I love this story, and I love knowing that Jesus liked wine and a good party. Jesus was not a fuddy duddy, and He really loved people and engaging people in public situations. That is one of the marks of John’s Gospel. You see very public and personal encounters with Jesus. He encounters Nicodemus and the Samaritan women. We see these very intimate public encounters with Jesus. Notice what Jesus says to Mary in John 2:4, “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.” The problem is that they have run out of wine, so Mary lets Jesus know about this. The word in Greek here is hora , “My hour has not yet come.” This phrase will come up again and again in John’s Gospel. Turn to John 4, where we have the encounter with the Samaritan woman. Notice what Jesus says in verse 21, “An hour is coming when you will worship the Father, not on this mountain nor in Jerusalem […] A time is coming and has come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.” The New International Version (NIV) translates the word “hour” as time. This is probably for a good reason in the sense that the translators understand that John uses the word “hour” in the sense of the eschatological moment. This is the eschatological hour, the hour when the Messiah comes.

Let us look at some more passages that refer to “the hour.” In John 5:25 Jesus says, “A time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.” This introduces another thing that we will be talking about in terms of John’s Christology. That is that throughout John’s Christology, Jesus’ deity is quite explicit. Only God has the power of life and death. That Father gives that power to the Son. Notice again the theme “an hour is coming.” John 7:30 says, “They tried to seize him but no one laid a hand on him because his hour had not yet come. Still in the crowd many put their faith in him. They said, ‘When the Christ comes, will he do more miraculous signs than this man?’” Then we come to John 8:20, “He spoke words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put, yet no one seized him because his time and his hour had not yet come.” Throughout the first half of John’s Gospel we get this recurring phrase that creates a sense of suspense. There is a sense of expectation for those who listen and hear this.

When we get to John 12, this is the hinge for John’s Gospel. The Gospel of John is really like a door with two panels. Some have talked about it in terms of two books: the book of the signs and the book of the glory. That is one helpful way to look at it, though it is not the only way to look at it. Notice that in John 12:23 things really heat up. Here we have the prediction of Jesus’ death. “Jesus replied, ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies it remains a single seed. But if it dies it produces many seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it. […] My heart is troubled. What will I say, “Father, save me from this hour”? No, it is for this hour that I have come. Father, glorify your name.’ Then a voice comes from heaven, ‘I have glorified it and will glorify it again.’” All along we have been hearing, “The hour has not yet come.” Now the penny drops; the hour has come. I hate the fact that the NIV changes its translation there from “time” to “hour.” It is the same word. It is thematic and repeated. Right here in John 12:23-27 we have a clustering. Everything knots up and we see, “The hour has not yet come, the hour has not yet come… the hour has come for the Father to glorify the Son.” Now we turn the hinge to the next page of glory.

Let us talk about the cleansing of the temple. The bigger challenge is about where the cleansing of the temple happens. The view of the Jews is a big deal. It is strident, and it has a big edge to it, because the separation of the synagogue has happened. We also have to appreciate the fact that everything in this assumes a very Jewish world. John’s Gospel is different in that three times we have the business of Passover. In the other synoptic Gospels we have only one Passover talked about, which is the final one. It is only from John’s Gospel that we know about the three-year ministry of Jesus. Other Gospels mention the fact that He goes to Bethany to the house of Mary and Martha. John’s Gospel shows us that it was a base of operation. He kept going to and from Bethany back to Jerusalem. The point is that we really should appreciate the historical value of John’s Gospel.

We see in the other synoptic Gospels that the cleansing of the temple takes place at the beginning of Passion Week. Jesus comes in, and the moneychangers’ business is going on. We already talked before about cleansing the temple and the house of prayer for the nations. In John’s Gospel the cleansing of the temple happens in chapter 2, right at the beginning. One way that people have tried to solve that dilemma is to say that in John’s Gospel we do not have any passion predictions except when you get to John 12 with the parable about the seed falling in the ground. That is the only thing we have in John’s Gospel that parallels the passion predictions of the others. They say that in the whole business with the temple and what Jesus says about tearing down the temple and building it back in three days is a reference to His own body. They say John’s commentary is obviously from the perspective of post- Easter. Some have said that John moves this event to the front of Jesus’ ministry to provide a theological lens on the whole of Jesus’ ministry. He does not intend to go in historical order. There is some truth to the fact that a lot of what goes on in John’s Gospel incorporates symbols. Sometimes John does not use language that emphasizes chronological order. He might just say, “After this” or “after that.” We have to pay attention to that, because the author sends us signals in the way he writes. Is the author telling us he wants to have a close chronology or not? It has some appeal to it, because you see the cleansing of the temple, and the death of Jesus and His resurrection colors the entire ministry going forward.

That view has some problems, though. Look at John 4:43. Jesus had the encounter with the Samaritans, and the Gospel went out to a lot of people in the Samaritan village of Sychar who came to believe. Verse 43 says, “After the two days he left for Galilee. (Now Jesus himself had pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) When he arrived in Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him. They had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, for they also had been there.” That verse sends an important signal. John is saying that there was a cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. This has a lot of discussion even among Evangelical scholars, but in my view there were two cleansings. That view has problems; I acknowledge that. John’s Gospel tells us about three years of Jesus’ ministry. The biggest challenge to the two-cleansing view, because of the different wording, is that if Jesus made a big ruckus, the temple leaders would be on the lookout for Him. They would be ready to arrest Him. If He came back the next year and did the same thing, this would probably be so. But it is two years later that He does it in Passion Week again, maybe even three if there are four Passovers counted in John’s Gospel. A good bit of time has gone by, and they have kept their eye on Him. He has behaved Himself, but when He comes back for Passion Week He does the same thing again. They have had it!

From a political and historical perspective, the Gospels make it very clear that the precipitating event of the trial of Jesus is the ruckus at the temple. We cannot have that; we have to have order. It is also a direct challenge to the temple leadership. We see that Jesus’ charges of sedition against Caesar are rooted in His direct challenge to the temple leadership and His incredible action of cleansing the temple. It is interesting that this is just like the prophets of the Old Testament, particularly Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They had to do all of these actions that were symbolic. Ezekiel had to lay on his life and build a model

© Spring 2008, Gregory Perry & Covenant Theological Seminary New Testament Bible Content Overview Lesson 7, page 5 of Jerusalem. He always did things that symbolized what God was going to do. We see that with Jesus. He acts like an Old Testament prophet, and He does things that symbolize what He is up to. John makes that very clear in John 12 with the washing of the disciples’ feet. What He is about to do for them directly relates to what He just did for them in washing their feet.

One of the big things that critical scholars bring up about the historicity of John’s Gospel and of the Gospels in general is the conflict between the synoptic Gospels and John about the cleansing of the temple. It is an important question, but John 4:45 leads me to believe that John really intended for us to understand that there were two cleansings, one at the beginning and one at the end.

There are some important differences in the Gospel of John. It is very intriguing that about 90 percent of the material in John’s Gospel is different from the material in the synoptic Gospels. That is a big number. In John’s Gospel you do not have any exorcisms. Christ’s deity is explicit from the very beginning. The other Gospels construct a Christology from below. As we get to know Jesus and what He does, we come to understand that He is God and is divine. In John’s Gospel the Christology comes from above. The Son from heaven, the pre-existent Word from heaven who was with God in the beginning is sent by the Father into history. We get the word on Jesus at the very beginning, and we have a Christology from above in John’s Gospel.

I think one of the reasons why we do not have any exorcisms in John’s Gospel is because when the Son from heaven enters in, light has come into the world. Light has come into the darkness, and heaven comes into this sphere. John is not interested in the messy in-between conflicts. John is interested in light and darkness. In John we see love and hate, life and death, truth and lies, and above and below. The confrontation with demons indicates a messy middle, but John is not interested in that in terms of these ultimate categories for Him. I am not sure if that is the reason, but that is how I make sense of it in my mind.

As I mentioned earlier, John’s Gospel contains no parables. John records the sayings of Jesus in his own way with the “I am” sayings. Instead of parables we have sayings that are related to parabolic actions. We see the water being turned into wine. We also have living water, and Jesus says, “The one who believes in me, out from him will flow living water.” Jesus walks on water. There is water and light imagery. What follows right after in John 7 are the rivers of living water and more light imagery. Jesus says, “I am the light of the world.” In John 6 is the parabolic action of the feeding of the multitude. This is one miracle that is in all of the Gospels. There is an Old Testament reference in the backdrop of this miracle, and it becomes very explicit in John’s Gospel. “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness” is a statement that comes right after Jesus feeds them with bread. Jesus says, “I am the bread of life.” You have a parabolic action that is then explained or interpreted through the saying, “I am the bread of life. The one who eats of my flesh and drinks my blood will never die.” Jesus gives sight to the man born blind, and we see the imagery of light. “I am the light of the world.” The parabolic action of blindness or darkness and light is really important in terms of Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees. They are ironically blind guides, and they have spiritual blindness. We also see the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life.” I want you to see it is not a one-to-one correlation. One thing does not line up exactly with another. It is more interwoven together, and you can see how the signs and the sayings work together in John’s Gospel. Instead of parables we have these actions that relate to the “I am” sayings. There are seven important “I am” sayings. Jesus is the bread of life; the light of the world; the gate; the good shepherd, the resurrection and the life; the way, the truth, and the life; and the true vine.

This relates to another emphasis of the signs. Why are these signs given? Look at John 2 to see the significance of these signs. It is interesting that the word for sign is a bad word in the synoptic Gospels. A wicked generation looks after a sign, according to the synoptic Gospels. In John signs are mostly positive, though not entirely. These signs are so that you might believe. John 2:11 says, “This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.” John says his purpose statement in John 20, that the miracles are recorded that you might believe. In John 2 he says that the signs reveal the glory. Blindness is indicated when the Pharisees reject Jesus with the rejection of the signs.

There is also an emphasis on the word “faith.” We see over and over again this focus on faith. John says, “In order that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” John 1:12 says, “To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” From the beginning in the prologue of John’s Gospel we have an emphasis on faith. John 2:11 says, “His disciples put their faith in him.” John 2:23 says, “Many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.” There is also the focus on faith with Nicodemus in John 3:15 and 16. These are some of the clear characteristics of John’s Gospel. Another interesting thing is that the kingdom of God is not referenced very often. That is another difference with the synoptic Gospels.

There is a temptation to think about John’s Gospel as a spiritual Gospel. It has been called that from the very beginning. One of the ways that John’s Gospel was misused in the early church is that Gnostics began to use John because of his dualistic tendencies. John actually had to write his first letter as a corrective to the misuse of his Gospel. Oftentimes in 1 John he talks about things that you have known from the beginning. He references back and echoes issues in his Gospel because those who went out from the church in Ephesus and who seceded were influenced by Gnostic, dualistic thought. They thought about who Jesus is and what salvation is in terms of Greek dualistic categories. John had to correct them on that. Here is a little bit more here about the temple cleansing.

Let us look at the use of the Old Testament in John. The most important category of how John uses the Old Testament is typology. We can see this in the way in which he uses all of the important Jewish festivals. He describes Jesus as the fulfillment of Passover. At the very beginning Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus is what Passover is all about. He is the fulfillment of Jewish worship in Passover. He is the true temple, as we talked about earlier in John 2. He talks about the temple of His body being destroyed and raised again. He is the anti-type of the brazen serpent from Numbers 21. Moses lifted up the brazen serpent, and the people had to look to the serpent to live. The instrument of judgment in Numbers is also the instrument of salvation. We see that correspondence with the cross. The instrument of judgment and death is also the instrument of life and salvation.

So John uses pictures to show us that these are the categories that we need to think about. We need to understand them in their Old Testament context and use them as a way in which we understand who Jesus is. If John wrote an evangelistic tool for the congregation at Ephesus to be able to talk to their family and friends in the synagogue, he gave them a lot of help here. He says that Jesus is the Passover, the temple, and the brazen serpent who must be lifted up to draw all men to Himself. Jesus is the true manna from heaven, the living water. The feast of tabernacles, or booths, celebrates God’s provision in the wilderness, so this is another way to talk about Jesus. In the feast of tabernacles the high priest would walk out of the temple, get water from the pool of Siloam, come back to the temple, and pour it out. This reminds them of how God through Moses provided water in the wilderness for them. Jesus does not go early in the festival, but He goes on the last day of the festival. He has a conversation about this with his brothers in John 7 where he says, “It is not my time yet.” He goes on the last day because

© Spring 2008, Gregory Perry & Covenant Theological Seminary New Testament Bible Content Overview Lesson 7, page 7 on the last day the priest does this. There is almost a sense that at exactly the same moment that the priest pours the water, Jesus says, “If you believe in me, out of you will flow rivers of living water.” The imagery of the feast of tabernacles begins to correspond with the imagery of Ezekiel of the new reconstructed temple. Out of it will flow this river, and it will actually spread throughout the entire world and make everything come alive. Typology is really the most important category for understanding how it is that John uses the Old Testament.

Another Old Testament reference right at the beginning is that God sends the Word. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth have come by Jesus Christ. God sent His unique Son into the world, and we have beheld His glory. The sense of beholding His glory should sound familiar for the Old Testament. Moses gets to see God’s glory. Right after the golden calf, God puts him in the cleft of the rock, and he gets to see God’s glory as face to face. The reference is “Through Moses came the law, but grace and truth come through Jesus. We have beheld his glory.” Right there the glory of God is the presence of God. It is the very presence of who God is.

There is also Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees. He says, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify of me.” These references are everywhere throughout John’s Gospel. The biggest claim is in John 8. Jesus is talking with them and says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” That probably should be added into the “I am” sayings. You have all of these “ Ego emi ” sayings. Ego emi is exactly from Exodus 3 and the burning bush. “I am that I am” is an explicit claim to be the visible expression of God.

Another important emphasis in John’s Gospel is the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We see that in Luke, and we talked about that. In Luke the focus on the Spirit is the prophetic Spirit that is on Jesus as the prophet. This is a prophet like Moses and the Lord’s servant Isaiah. John 13 through 17 is a section called the upper-room discourse. Earlier I talked about Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17. Throughout the upper room discourse Jesus prepares the disciples for His departure. Time and time again He says, “In a little while I will go. And after I go I will send the Comforter.” He says, “While I was with you I showed you everything that the Father gave me to show you. He gave you to me. Everything that the father has he gave to me, and I gave it to you. This Comforter that I send when I go will not do anything in and of himself. He will do what I did. That is he will take from what I give him and from what the father gives, and he will give it to you.”

The upper room discourse is a wonderful resource for a Trinitarian doctrinal construction. Jesus talks about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. They reveal God’s action in the world, and they act together. This is also an important justification about the witnesses in the Old Testament. That is an issue in the way that Jesus engages the Jewish leadership. If there are two or three witnesses, everything will be established. He says, “There is no higher authority, so the Father bears witness to me. I bear witness by my actions.” Here we see the importance of the signs again. It is interesting that John talks about the Spirit’s ministry in that it is mainly something that will come later. Jesus has to leave for the Spirit to come. While Jesus is in the world He is the revelation of who God is. The Spirit is something He will give later. In John 14 and 16 we have this explanation of the Spirit’s ministry. The Spirit is the Spirit of truth. John picks up on that in 1 John and talks about the anointing. He says, “You do not have need to be taught, because you have the anointing. You know because the Spirit is with you.” We see the fulfillment in 1 John of something John talked about in John 14 and 16.

One other thing to mention about John’s unique way of talking about the passion of Jesus is this notion of the glory. The glory for John is a way of putting death and resurrection together. When John talks about the glory of Jesus and the glory of the Father being revealed in Jesus, he is talking about the death

© Spring 2008, Gregory Perry & Covenant Theological Seminary New Testament Bible Content Overview Lesson 7, page 8 and resurrection. He is talking about a completion of what began in the prologue. The movement of John is a Christology from above. The Son from heaven comes down; the Father sends Him. Jesus says, “The Son returns to the Father when he is glorified to be glorified again as I was with you before the foundations of the world.” No other Gospel writer says stuff like that. Only John wrote like that. The movement of John’s Gospel is from heaven to earth and back to heaven. When he talks about the glory and Jesus being lifted up, he is referring to Jesus being lifted up with the cross and being lifted back up to the Father in glory. It is one movement in the way John talks about the passion. He talks about death, resurrection, and ascension all together.

The last thing we can mention is the restoration of Peter as the way John’s Gospel ends. Very clearly Peter denies three times and three times Jesus asks him, “Do you love me?” Peter is given instructions of how to care for God’s people: to feed the flock. The restoration of Peter is how the Gospel ends, and it anticipates Peter’s own death as well.